cannabisnews.com: Judge Indicates He Wants To Protect Pot Patients





Judge Indicates He Wants To Protect Pot Patients
Posted by CN Staff on July 07, 2003 at 12:37:26 PT
Breaking News 
Source: Bay City News 
A federal judge in San Jose today indicated that he wanted to find a way to allow terminally ill patients to grow their own marijuana but did not think it would be possible under current federal law. U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel heard arguments by a group of plaintiffs, led by the city and county of Santa Cruz, seeking an injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Justice from enforcing federal drug laws against terminally ill patients using medical marijuana. 
"Frankly, I'm looking for a hook that's different from one I've already looked at and been forced to reject," Fogel said. "I would need something new and different other than 'judge you got it wrong last time."' Last December, Fogel ruled that current federal law and court precedents did not grant any exceptions to a Santa Cruz medical marijuana cooperative, the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, from federal drug laws. A number of the plaintiffs in that case are also plaintiffs in the current case. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, a member of the famed O.J. Simpson "Legal Dream Team," represents the plaintiffs in both the current case and last year's case. He said that the current case contains important legal differences that should allow Fogel to issue an injunction. "The judge is looking for hooks that have not been presented to the court before and we have them in this case," Uelmen said. One of the key "hooks," according to Uelmen, is that many of the plaintiffs in this case are terminally ill patients seeking only to alleviate their pain with marijuana. "What these patients are asserting is the right to control the circumstances of their deaths," Uelmen said. A Department of Justice attorney told Fogel today that the Supreme Court has already ruled that current federal drug laws do not recognize any exceptions for medical necessity. "What the Supreme Court made quite clear is that there's no medical necessity exception in the Controlled Substances Act," U.S. Department of Justice Senior Counsel Mark Quinlivan said. Fogel said he would issue a ruling on the injunction in the near future. Complete Title: Judge Indicates He Wants To Protect Medical Pot PatientsSource: Bay City News (CA)Published: July 7, 2003Copyright: 2003 Bay City News Contact: bcn pacbell.net Website: http://www.baycitynews.com/Related Articles & Web Site:WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Pot Reformers Put Pressure on Feinstein http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16690.shtmlState Urges Congress To Recognize Pot Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16679.shtmlFighting Back in Santa Cruzhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16092.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by CorvallisEric on July 07, 2003 at 20:29:17 PT
If law won't work, try motivational argument
Your honor, have you considered that by holding the Federal Govt. to be omnipotent, and immune from the effects of Constitutional Amendments 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14 (add any I've forgotten), that you help cause a lot of otherwise rational and reasonable people to believe conspiracy theories which claim (in increasing order of absurdity):1 - Our media are reaching a critical concentration of ownership where only the news and opinions valued by huge corporate interests are given useful space.2 - Our government is massively corrupt at all levels.3 - Capitalism and globalism, themselves, are destroying the earth and its peoples and everything else that doesn't matter to mega-corporate interests.And finally,4 - We no longer have an elected government, but are led by some evil hidden cabal?End of question to judge - maybe someone else could add reasons why a large shift of belief in this direction would be a Really Bad Idea.I personally believe very little from the 4 points, but have found myself increasingly drawn to statements like this during the 8 or so years that I've intently followed the "War on Some Drugs Especially Marijuana" (and during which I've smoked very little).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by SoberStoner on July 07, 2003 at 18:03:24 PT
It's called amendment 10
Prop 215 overrules CSA since cannabis prohibition is not directly addressed in the constitution, hence giving authority to the state to make it's own decisions. Californians and many other states have decided they want to try something other than "Catch em and can em" Why is Bu$h concentrating on a state that rejects almost anything he does..oh wait...thats why..WAMM probably wouldnt be able to stand on a religious movement just because it was established as a medical community and didnt really focus on religion. However, the recent case where they have come and directly stated they are smoking for religious purposes could be very interesting..I have a feeling that it could go as far as the Supreme's, which I feel is a necessary part of things. Once they start messing with freedom of religion, LOTS of people start getting really riled up.I hope Val does get to see true justice however. It sounds like the judge is trying to lead them to something he knows he can safely rule for them on.I guess we'll see.SS
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 07, 2003 at 16:27:26 PT
KSBWChannel.com - - Medical Marijuana Poll
The Supreme Court has ruled 8-0 that a federal law that makes pot illegal applies to everyone. What do you think? Choice Votes: Percent of 8143 votes It should be illegal in all cases. 1915 -- 24% People who suffer from cancer, AIDS, and other diseases should be able to use it for medical purposes. 6228 -- 76% Vote Here: http://www.theksbwchannel.com/health/2316487/detail.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by drfistusa on July 07, 2003 at 16:13:48 PT:
it's about symbols/religion
I will give him the hook, try state promotion of religion, because the Fed. Gov. has rejected all science and is basing the present campaign solely on religious belief and custom, not on science and common sense or actual experience. "the devils sacrement' has anything changed since the 13 th, century in that regard? no, just ask the pope !
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dankhank on July 07, 2003 at 14:05:09 PT:
Hook??
I want to know WHY the Federal Government can have a medical cannabis program with 6 individuals in it getting serious quantities of crappy weed for medical conditions for the last THIRTY years, and ...they are STILL able to float the schedule one lie: "No medical use," with the same breath?Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor."Gandi said, "Succor your brother."Everybody says, "I am Christian."How many hooks we need?
Hemp N Stuff ...Sorry 'bout those popups
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 07, 2003 at 13:04:56 PT
News Article from NBC11.com
Santa Cruz Sues Fed Over Medical MarijuanaJuly 7, 2003Medical Marijuana On Trial Video: http://cf.nbc11.com/bay/sh/videoplayer/video.cfm?id=2315940&owner=baySANTA CRUZ, Calif. -- The city and county of Santa Cruz and the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana are asking a federal judge for an injunction to stop the federal government from raiding medical marijuana clubs. A federal judge in San Jose Monday indicated that he wanted to find a way to allow terminally ill patients to grow their own marijuana but did not think it would be possible under current federal law. The controversial lawsuit stems from a raid last September when the Drug Enforcement Agency raided the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical marijuana garden in Santa Cruz County. Citizens of Santa Cruz and that marijuana club are take on the federal government over the raid and over the future of drug enforcement in California. In 1996, Californians passed a new drug law that made it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana for patients. The problem is that the federal government also has drug laws that it vigorously enforces. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, a member of the famed O.J. Simpson "Legal Dream Team," represents the plaintiffs in both the current case and last year's case. He said that the current case contains important legal differences that should allow Fogel to issue an injunction. "The judge is looking for hooks that have not been presented to the court before and we have them in this case," Uelmen said. State and federal law came into public conflict in the recent case of Ed Rosenthal. http://www.nbc11.com/news/2315762/detail.html
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment